Pelosi
 

Do you feel Pelosi should run and be the Minority leader. Considering how the people did vote, and the overwhelming change in the House, is it the smart decision.

Personally I am a conservative, I am a registered Democrat though since in NYC, primary election counts more. I personally really do dislike Pelosi and has told my representative that I am against any support for Pelosi to continue to lead. While I doubt my voice will be listened to, (I only mention these facts since I do not want anyone to think I am a true democrat at heart and to know where my viewpoint is coming from). I do wonder if by not changing leadership at all, if the Democrat party is making a mistake.

whether she should run is one question, whether she should win is another. The first one is easy - of course she should run if she wants to. It's a free country, and anyone who wants to put herself forward for a position should be able to.

Whether she should win if she runs....... well, that's up to her caucus, isn't it? The carnage among Dem ranks in the last election leaves a caucus much more hard-core left, with members from safe seats, than in the previous Congress. So it's pretty plausible they'd want someone like her leading them. And why not? She's tough, she's smart, she's telegenic. It'll depend on what their goals are. If they want to be a plausible alternative to the Repubs, they won't choose her. If they want to just be the resistance, they will.

i thought this might be interesting as a background element for the thread:

House Democrats could have same leadership team despite 60-seat loss

first off, its the conservative democrats that took the main pounding in the elections. to which i say--great. fuck em. what's the difference between a moderate democrat and a republican, really? the type of animal each pins on their lapel. that's it. ideologically, conservative democrats are as much a problem as are the republicans--nothing to say, nothing to offer beyond the same old tired bromides.

secondly, "hard-core left" loquitor? surely you jest. there is no left to speak of within the democratic party. seriously. get a grip. bernie sanders. a social democrat.

third is that it appears vague considerations about the television persona that the right media apparatus has constructed around nancy pelosi is of no consequence whatsoever in the question of the role she'll play in the next session of the house. it's about maintaining the ranks. which is probably a good thing for the legion of 70 year-olds who currently run the show. whether it's good for the non-republicans remains to be seen.

I respect the process and I would respect a real up or down vote on Pelosi. Let's not have a backroom deal, if the party supports her, she should serve. Otherwise, let there be an open rejection of her style, her agenda, her leadership. My guess is that there will be a backroom deal in order to avoid a competitive vote. And, yes I feel the same about Republican leadership - these positions should not be gifts based on years of service or ability to raise money.

rb, by American standards, what's left of the Democratic caucus in the House is pretty leftish, and they have no real fear of being voted out because they are largely in safe seats.

So they'll have to make some decisions about what sort of face they want their party to present to the country. Should be interesting.

Since no party represents my views I suppose I can be detached about this, but I'm much more concerned about the country's well-being, and I hope people act in a sane way.

Can you give us specifics as to why you dislike Pelosi? I'm curious if this is simply a branding by the RNC problem or does it have to do with her actual politics.

I can talk about my issues with Pelosi but really it is a different topic, but quickly, I do disagree with how far left she is, I can agree on compromise but she has rarely offered any compromise. Which is why I feel that she is a bad choice now since I do not know if she will be willing and able to work with the new leadership in the house.

As well outside of policies, I have issues with how she handled corruption in the house. She on purpose left all the hearings on Rangel until after the elections. I know that is a political thing to keep the seat, and they will now try to get the case done and settled before Republicans take control, but it disgusts me.

I also hate the blame the past administration attitude she has. Everyone can always keep blaming someone, she has been an elected official since I believe 1987, she has been speaker since 2007, she is part of the past as well. I feel that all of them need to accept some blame and work looking forward and not backwards and stop trying to spin everything.

I can talk about individual policies, my opinion on having a health care bill that no one even fully understood voted on and shoved down the throats of Americans before it can be fully analyzed and evaluated. I wish they had slowly voted on piece by piece of the bill and slowly enacted it and see how the affects so they can adjust it.

But to me this thread is not about her issues, it is the fact that the People did speak this election and said overwhelmingly that they disagreed how the House of Representatives was doing their job. That is all under Nancy Pelosi leadership. Yes she was not voted out, but she should take it as a reproach on what the people want, this country is a Republic. And if the Democratic Party puts her back in some ways it may hurt them more. That is my personal thought.

i dont think adequate information is out there about how the actually existing nancy pelosi has worked as speaker. instead you have conservative cartoon infotainment meant to help channel the faithful into yet another group hate, which conservatives seem to enjoy or at least find themselves drawn to enough so that the media apparatus that lets the right know what it is concerned about and the ways it is concerned about those things keep working the form. i think you'd do well to read more about how pelosi the actually existing human being has performed in the real-life office of speaker.

there was no overwhelming disagreement. there was a crumbling of the center. it was not a referendum on nancy pelosi, the last election, no matter what the bubbleheads on fox news might say. **for them** maybe it was. but who gives a shit what they think?

you can't play the game of whining about reference to the bush administration since it was the catastrophic policies of that administration---which built on 30 years of other republican style catastrophic policy--that landed us here in the first place. the obama administration has had to run from the outset to manage the disaster that the bush administration set into motion. the only reason the right bitches about saying as much is that their marketing people know---they know---that referencing historical reality, and so speaking coherently about the world as it is, means that the republicans would have to run on their record. if they had to do that they'd be fucked. so they pretend they're something else, so imaginary party of imaginary mavericks. but you have to have memory problems to buy that. and if you do buy that nonsense, it's little wonder that you find other conservative policies coherent---memory problems like that are not far from cognitive issues. you can figure out the rest of the demonstration. moves in a straight line.


again, you can't evaluate "leadership" if you've no clue what actually goes on.
well, maybe you can---but that'd mean we're talking conservatism here, a place in which reality is just a pesky addendum. mavericky maverick "vision" is what we want, right?
that the mavericky maverick "vision" is exactly the same old shit the right's been peddling for 30 years bought and paid for by the same old tired deep pockets...that's just that pesky reality stuff again. bad reality. bad. not big enough for "visionaries"

While I do dislike her leadership, her uncompromising role and willingness to just blame always the past administration never taking any responsibility... Let us say I can not evaluate leadership, does that mean the Democrat party going from 255 to 188 does the speaker get no blame or responsibility for that?

Will the constituents who voted all those out be happy with such a decision to keep her in? Does it not seem plausible that it will.

And while you may dislike the view and ideas on fox, they do have the highest ratings of news, they have a huge following so obviously they do represent a large group of peoples opinions. But to me this was not an issue of Fox news, rather just the idea as Obama put it, change, this election showed people were not happy with the current cast and made their voice clear.

but that changes nothing about reality.
and the reality is that it is conservative economic thinking that got us into this economic fiasco.
and the **last** thing that'll get the united states out of it is more of the same nonsense.
think what you want about this need to reference the past--and so reference history, which isn't open to discussion--in order to talk about the reality that's shaped by it.

it's really hard to take conservative talking points seriously when they have to hide the real in order to get started.

the "blame the past" meme seems somewhere between worthless and schizophrenic.


added later: here's a squib about pelosi's interview this week with diane sawyer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_778660.html

Not only do I think she should run, I think she should win. While Obama and Reid were being ineffectual, she was actually getting shit done in the House. The only reason she took the brunt of the damage in this election is because the House is also where it's easiest to change members. Without Pelosi's leadership, we would have gotten less done with even more concessions.

I will have to know who else is running.

But, the more the Republicans/Tea party complains about her, the better the job she must be doing. :)

She was the speaker when her party lost 60 seats in one election! How can that possibly be interpreted under any circumstance, by any standard as a good job?

How is this possibly about Republicans? They had the oval office (with a President with historic favorability ratings), a super majority in the Senate, complete control of the agenda in the House, and overwhelming support from independents and moderates - so I don't get any connection to conservatives at all.

because, ace, part of being speaker of the house is actually managing workloads, getting bills to vote and that sort of thing. you know, the actual stuff that the actually existing speaker of the house actually does, and not this vaporous "leadership" horseshit that the rightwing press goes on and on about as if their arbitrary b-school-lite jargon corresponded to the world.

but hey, you obviously go in for that reality-optional thing.

We have very different views on what leadership is. The captain of the Titanic may have had an impeccable record regarding his administrative duties, to which I would say, so what! I would rather be on a boat with a Captain who would avoid running into an iceberg. But that just me, to each his own.

Ace, you must have hated having Bush for a POTUS. Talking about running a ship aground.

They should go left to find the next minority leader. Maurice Hinchey would be an interesting choice. Kucinich would be ballsy as fuck. Pelosi was a good choice at one time, but the right is going to target the minority leader whether he/she is "leftist" or not, so they might as well choose someone of consistent conviction who is unwilling to compromise with people who are demonstrably wrong. We need a progressive powerhouse, a liberal superhero. I like Nancy Pelosi, but she's not that person.

Hinchey makes an excellent example of a Congressman that should be prosecuted for his actions as noted here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...voted-out.html

There is so much on this topic, I think you are just trying to bait me into going off topic. You know I supported Bush, most of his actions and shared many of his views.

Hey you're the one that brought up favoring a "Captain who would avoid running into an iceberg." I'd say leaving the country in economic free fall while fighting two unfunded wars was a pretty HUGE iceberg, no?

Ace: Pelosi is not the chairman of the DCCC. Chris Van Hollen is - and he is stepping down, as he should.

Very off topic question. Are the quotes in dogzilla's post, colored black by him, or is this a new TFP thing? The dark text is difficult to read against TFP's green skin.

Sorry for the intrusion.

I'm using the desert sand skin and didn't intentionally color them. I just used the quote icon above the reply box to quote them.

Fixed the color for you :)

It's pretty clear that there's a mostly standardized transparency used by various members of the right wing media to frame members of the opposition. I am highly confident that if Pelosi is replaced with someone else that transparency will be removed from her (maybe not removed, probably just copied), slightly modified, and then applied to her replacement. The problem isn't with Pelosi, but with the way she's portrayed to people who are predisposed to dislike her.

The continued relevance of Newt Gingrich is proof that the establishment right doesn't really care about congressional leadership as measurement of a politician's worth. Maybe Pelosi should retire and build a career out of mulling a run for president every four years.

Pelosi is an issue only because the conservative talking heads have made her an issue. I would suspect most voters have no idea who the majority or minority leaders are and even less about what they do.

Pelosi is very good at what she does -- pushing through legislation and raising money. If you measure success based on those criteria, the last session of the House was the most successful in a long term in terms of significant legislation passed....and because of that success, she is vilified even more by the right. And that extremist vilification only added to her success as a fundraiser.

The right is getting carried away blaming the loss of the House on Pelosi...but it does play to the emotion of the masses who live and die on every word of the Limbaughs and Becks.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------


The so-called stalling of the Rangel ethics trial is an example of the over-the-top rhetoric promoted by the Limbaugh and Becks and perpetuated by their uninformed followers. The trial, like any trial, takes prep time - interviewing potential witnesses, the discovery process, etc.

As to how she handled corruption in the House, one would think those on the right would have applauded the fact that she pushed through the most comprehensive ethics reform in recent years, by twisting the arms of many Democrats.

One of the best features of that ethics reform was the creation of a quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics so that the members of Congress themselves cant full control and manipulate the process. Boehner has indicated that he is open to disbanding the OCE.

Where was the outrage from the right when not one Republican supported the creation of the OCE?

As someone from NY, I hate how Rangel for example was not tried before the election, how all ethics cases got pushed until after the election. It was a political move and an incorrect one in my book. And when the right does something like that I am equally upset.

The craziest part of it all is that despite all Rangel does he still gets elected.

But to me this was not about her values to me I think Pelosi politically should step aside just because it may seem as a concession to the people who voted out the Democrats saying hey we understand and are willing to change. You can still do same old same old, but my initial concept was is it a smart idea for her to remain.

And you can say hey we don't understand speakers job, personally I am friends with the speaker of the assembly in NY, I do. I also know the speaker will never get favorable media coverage, again I grasp that. One of the speakers jobs is to take all the heat. But it also means they should take the punishment, it comes with the position.

Given that the Ethics Committee does not release the details of its deliberations, you are jumping to conclusions that the postponement was political and not giving "due process" to the defendant.

Of course, politics plays a role, but dont dismiss the rights of the accused (to prepare a defense) so lightly.

---------- Post added at 09:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 AM ----------

BTE, Maxine Waters would not be facing an ethics trial if not for the OCE that Pelosi pushed through, despite the fact that many in her own party did not like it (and it had no Republican support).

I am not, but some of these charges stem back to 2008, if the process is over 2 years long for a trial, then there are even larger issues. And I say don't dismiss the political play of waiting until after the trial.

No, I don't see it the way you do.

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

Not my point.

I think Obama and Congress failed to listen to the American people and they failed to make the case for their agenda. I see this as a failure in leadership, a failure at the top. I do understand that my opinion has no importance on this issue.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

Are you saying that those who don't like Pelosi are more effective than she is? If so, isn't that a problem? Wouldn't you want someone who can not only over come this problem, but be able to present the opposition in a unfavorable way.

Isn't national politics for adult participation? Is the "they are playing unfair" argument a worthy response? Is Pelosi less "political" than her opposition on the right?

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

I don't think pushing through bad legislation is doing a very good job? Isn't there concern that as she pushed bad legislation she hurt her party and that is the reason many middle of the road Democrats lost their seat in the House?

Would she stop helping her party raise money, if not in leadership? How much money did she raise for Republicans? I remember a lot of material using the stop Obama/Pelosi agenda being used in commercials and mailers.

Ace, you misread me. I said that any Pelosi replacement would be subject to the same insipid, manufactured criticisms that she has. So using those manufactured criticisms as a justification for replacing her is dumb because they don't actually have anything to do with her specifically (which isn't to say they haven't been personalized to fit her).

I would think Bush's spending and passing TARP would make most conservatives feel much different then you Ace. But you're entitled to your opinion of the man.

What bad legislation?

The comprehensive ethics reform - her first order business as Speaker in 07 (that Boehner may gut)? The pay equity for women act? The credit card bill of rights act? The financial reform act regulating Wall Street? The campaign finance reform (that Republicans killed in the Senate).

So you must mean the bi-partisan TARP legislation that Bush signed. Or health care reform that most Americans, while perhaps not liking all of it (based on the massive misinformation campaign) dont want repealed, or the stimulus, which many Congressional Republicans opposed while bragging at home about bringing jobs to their state/district (with stimulus money).

For most Americans, the election was about the economy. Pelosi was added into the mix because it sells.

Hell, nearly 40% of Americans cant even name the sitting Vice President (recent poll). So do you really think they know anything about Pelosi other than what they hear on Limbaugh/Beck.

I think you misread me. If manufactured criticisms is a part of the game, and i think it is. She failed to overcome any manufactured criticisms. There may be people who can. If I had a vote, it would go to someone who can win at the game.

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

I think Bush's actions with TARP at the end of his administration were symbolic. No person will ever persuade me that about $700 billion was going to save the financial sector. More unbelievable is the thought that amount would save the economy. Symbolic gestures from leaders is often needed to inject confidence, however, Obama immediately did the opposite time 1,000.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous criterions for choosing a leader that I've ever seen. And how does one "overcome" partisan messaging from a cable news network.

There are many threads on specific issues and legislation. The biggest was health-care reform.

Much of the above contributed to our current economic condition, and none of the above in the minds of voters addressed unemployment.

No.

My premiums are going up by 13% next year. I only have the choice of one carrier with a competitive premium, my current one, given my circumstance. This hybrid compromised legislation, needs to be fixed - she knew that, but passed it anyway. Why not get it right? Why not fight for single payer and get the votes if that is what she wanted? Why sellout with bad legislation? Was it just to push it through? Well that worked well, didn't it.

No doubt that politicians are political. But the stimulus has not worked. Again, bad legislation with inadequate controls.

Isn't that a problem? Why have a speaker or a party leader who the opposition is able to effectively trash in ads? What is the point of leadership in your mind?

The anti-Pelosi message worked. I live in NC, in the months prior to the election, almost every political conversation I had ultimately included some comment on Pelosi being a San Francisco liberal not understanding real American values (I am paraphrasing the comments of many people), so your suggestion that Americans don't get it, suggests to me that perhaps it is you who does not get it. Nothing personal, but perhaps there is a need for DC types to spend time outside of DC.

I travel a fair amount in my job and spend lots of time outside of DC.

And I encounter more rigid ideologues outside of DC than inside the beltway. not to mention, more people who are guided by what they want to read and hear (again, probably a vast majority of those who cant name the VP)

And those ideologues always ignore the facts when the facts are counter to their ideology.

Nothing personal, but your posts speak for themselves.

It is clearly another Mars/Venus thing. If involved in a "street fight" (a contest where people may hit below the belt and when the consequences of taking actions that may break conventional rules can not be reversed), you want to be the person who wins, period. Sure, I would love to make "nice, nice", with opponents - but if I get sucker punched, its my fault and I gotta live with the broken nose. That is how I see things, perhaps you don't. the world has both types of people, and I understand why they may not understand each other.

I do have to laugh at the notion of "real American values."

Why not just admit that you dont like her because she challenges your rigid ideology.

How about the fact that the anti-Pelosi message worked? You seem to suggest that it did not, are you ignoring a fact? Or, do we agree the anti-Pelosi message worked? If we agree do you understand why it worked? I do, and it had very little to do with Beck/Rush/Hannity/etc.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

Come to NC and talk to some folks outside of Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham. I doubt you can imagine the level of outrage.

There is no evidence in exit polls or post-election polling data that the anti-Pelosi message worked.

There is little evidence that the bills you dont like (bad bills) had any impact.

The demagoguery of Pelosi was political theater - a sidebar to make the extremists happy.

The Democrats lost for one reason - because they were not able to turn the economy around quickly enough, even though the stimulus stopped the economy from an even greater collapse (according to a broad consensus of economists across the political spectrum...with the exception, of course, of the libertarians).

I live less than 45 minutes south of San Francisco and I'm there at least twice a month.

I made my grandmother homemade chicken soup (Alton Brown's recipe) this morning because she has a cold. My neighbor, a Vietnam vet, is going blind, so I take out his trash and help with his landscaping. I pay all my taxes on time. I'm a small business owner and if things keep going the way they're going, I might have to hire on people at a respectable wage. I've voted in every election since I was 18. I support other local businesses. I'm not in debt. I donate to charity.

What exactly is it about San Fransisco liberals that would make you think we don't have "American values"? Is it because I don't want to prevent people in love from getting married, violating the 14th Amendment? Maybe it's because I don't like it when our troops are killed in a country that was never a threat to our country? Oh, I know! It's because I believe in the wall of separation between church and state!

I wonder which values Representative Pelosi lacks that people in North Carolina have. I have family in North Carolina (a blue state now). Maybe I can ask them why they're real Americans and I'm not.

I'm really sick of the "real American" BS line being used by the right.

And those are people with 'real American values' while people from San Francisco cannot fathom what those are? That line of thinking is ridiculous. Am I less real of an American with real American values because I'm from New Mexico than someone from Alabama? Am I more real than someone from New York? It makes absolutely no sense.

This is interesting. We get the same pattern we've been seeing since the beginning of the Obama administration, this elitism vs. populism. Pelosi is some kind of west coast liberal poster child, Obama is some kind of Chicago backroom politico, etc., etc. They're destroying America with their strong-arming of anti-American values, the republic is at risk, they're out of touch with the American people, blah, blah, blah.

I never really analyzed it, but I always felt the general perception of Pelosi was a bit fabricated. Post-Bush Republicans have done nothing constructive except where they wish to simultaneously mislead and pander to the public with cheap populist rhetoric. "Pelosi must go because she is a complete failure." "Obama is a complete failure, so we must take back the House."

But to get there you must create narratives that people will not only buy but will relate to others around them. Since Republicans have nothing to go on after Bush self-destructed what was left of Republican integrity, they must fill the vacuous void with something that will build a bridge between a mythical Reagan and the next presidential election. So they raise Reagan's spirit and seek to infuse it into a Republican hopeful, all the while they fight the Democrats, keeping them at bay using any method necessary. Fiction works well.

And so here on TFP, the question of "real American values" has come up. What sort of fictions have the Republicans been telling about that concept? Aren't real American values simply living free, working hard, and following your dreams? I'm pretty sure Pelosi and Obama are the epitome of that.

Jeez. Just because I eat babies...

You lost me here. You seem to be referencing the pop psychology notion that men are from mars and women are from venus, but I'm pretty sure that you're not trying to attribute our differences of opinion to the fact that we aren't of the same gender, since I'm fairly certain that we are both dudes.

And somehow we went from talking about politics to talking about street fighting. Let me assure you that I am fully aware that the tactics required to win an election differ from the tactics required to survive random urban assault. I'm not sure what this has to do with Nancy Pelosi's ability to "overcome" the right wing messaging machine.

Well played, sir.

...

Perhaps there are other means for uncovering facts. But, it does not matter - believe what you want.

How about this fact on health care reform:

Number of uninsured U.S. adults hits record high - USATODAY.com

Bad legislation! Premiums going up, more uninsured, less choices, they even said let's get it passed and then fix it and they can not communicate why the bill is a good bill to the public. You think this is good leadership?

Are you ignoring facts? What happened in the elections was not about extremists.

They made the economy worse.

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

What do they have against Happy Meals???? Let's start with that. 20% of the working population in this country worked at McDonald's at one time, about 60 million. I would guess almost every child has enjoyed a Happy Meal. Let parents, parent - isn;t that an American value.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

I am the "right", I admit it and I am open about it - I love talking politics and I will even start a conversation standing in line at the grocery store. What I wrote was based on hundreds of either short or long conversations with people - those were their words. Some conservative, many middle of the road, and even some who voted for Obama.

If you are inclined, go out and talk to 25 people, outside of your normal circle, about politics over the weekend and tell us what you find.

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

Again, not my words.

Here is my take on this based on my conversations. Most of these people live their day to day lives and don't get passionate about politics, but what has been occurring has sparked a passion that they don't normally have - many are for lack of a better term, p!ssed off, and they do think their way of life is being threatened. Like I suggested above, go out and talk to people and see, again people who would not normally talk to and listen.

ace, never let the facts get in the way of your American values! You really stepped in it this time.

Sure, the number of uninsured and the cost of premiums have gone up in the last year.....both have gone up for the last 10+ years.

So you blame the health care reform enacted this year, most of which wont go into effect until 2014....and that the majority of Americans dont want repealed, despite all the demagoguery and outright lies about the legislation by the right.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that those on the right have values that are no more American than anyone elses....they are just more intolerant of opposing views.

Don't make your issues, my issues.

Take Lisa (voter intent) Merkusky in AK. She could have played by the rules and given a passive endorsement to the guy who won the primary. But she did not. She ran a write in campaign and she is going to win. She sees things the way I do, you fight to win. Miller ran too far right, and thought he was sitting pretty, but got sucker punched.

Ironically, I would not have voted for Murkoyski in the primary, but I would have voted for her in the general - I did not know she was a fighter - my kind of person. You and Pelosi seem to blame others

My point had nothing to do with gender.

Pelosi is a victim, Pelosi has no responsibility in the recent slaughter, isn't that the argument? Fighters don't have that attitude.

whoo boy, ya got love it when the argument comes down to 'people with real American values,' catchphrase for 'Americans who think just like me'

I'm an American and I assert that my values are both real and American.

What's more, my parents live in NC and they're both hardworking (now retired) liberals and I assert that their values are both real and American, too. They are comfortable money-wise, maybe even well-off by some standards, yet they live modestly, give freely, pay their taxes and obey the law. Ooh, lawdy, the horror.

It's really sickening, how nonchalantly conservatives dismiss what is still a very prevalent and meaningful sector of the American populace as 'not really American-like.' pfft. Do you ever stop to ask yourself who the hell you think you are when you and your friends go blathering on about 'real Americans'?

Yet somehow we are the elitists. Unbelievable.

I know the trends, my point is that legislation could have been passed that had an immediate impact on improving the trends and I would have considered that good legislation. In addition I see no evidence that the legislation will do what was promised and they even said that they would need to fix it. There are a few threads on this topic, my position is go all the way with single payer or fine tune the system as suggested by many Republicans - what we have now is an unfolding disaster.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

Again, I share my personal experiences and I paraphrase what I hear - I am like the messenger. Similar to another exchange, it seems that putting a real issue on the table is met with contempt. Do you want to pretend the feeling I described are not real? Again, I say put them on the table and discuss them.

Maybe you're not aware of it, but you and your friends are not the only ones who are outraged. My mother has been in a continual state of 'pissed off' ever since Reagan. That's a very real issue, too, but somehow it's not quite as media sexy nor, apparently, as 'American.' Therefore, no, I'm not particularly interested in hearing from you why you and your friends are pissed off because if I turn on the television THAT'S ALL I HEAR.

Funny, that.

personally, i think the democrats got into trouble because they didn't distance themselves far enough fast enough from the record of disaster left behind by the bush people. the worst decision was keeping on geithner, bernake et al from the bad old days of the previous administration.

this from james galbraith:

James K. Galbraith: Obama's Problem Simply Defined: It Was the Banks

all that compounded by the problem of centrism, which is a focus on near-term tactical matters often to the exclusion of an overall plan or idea, which is a real Problem in the current mercenary conservative-newcycle-driven "free press"...

i still marvel sometimes at the magnitude of the shit sandwich handed us by the right and the fact that they've been able to meme their way out of a richly deserved oblivion...

obviously the "problem" is nancy pelosi.

fucking chumps.

Read what I wrote. The message I shared is not from "my friends".

they are chumps. shadowboxing with the liberal menace. it's the only pleasure I can take from the whole pathetic business.

I know it's popular to be libertarian these days, but this issue needs to be put in the proper context. Children are not allowed to smoke. It's not because we hate business and want to put working people in the tobacco industry out on the street, but because the consequence of smoking has been clearly, consistently, and repeatedly verified to the point of medical certainty. Smoking causes cancer. Smoking is physically dangerous. While adults shouldn't be prevented from purchasing cigarettes, the fact is that children are still developing the ability to determine right and wrong. Children aren't able to vote, fight in a war, and enjoy other liberties adults enjoy because they are still developing the ability to understand the real world consequences for their decisions.

Happy meals include a hamburger, French fries, a soda, and a toy. The hamburger and French fries are very high in salt and fat, each of which have been demonstrated to have a causal link to heart disease (much the same way smoking has been linked to cancer). The soda is very high in processed sugar, which has been demonstrated to have a causal link to diabetes. These are not opinions, but rather facts. Worse still, like nicotine-packed cigarettes, high sugar and high fat fast food is addictive.

I'm going to make this very clear: Happy Meals are like when cigarettes are marketed directly to children. They're seeking to take advantage of a group of people who are still developing the cognitive ability to make an informed choice about endangering their health.

But we all know you weren't referring to Happy Meals above when discussing Pelosi and San Francisco. I'd like you to say what you mean and mean what you say. I've never once thought that the red areas of the country are disloyal or don't have people with values. I'd like to understand why I'm not extended the same courtesy.

This is getting hilarious. We have had the biggest resurgence in conservatism in the history of this country and some here want to pretend it did not happen or that it was simply because of the economy. Two years ago, we had speculation about the death of the Republican party in some threads, and within that time-frame there was a shifting of sentiment, a shift anyone could see and feel if they took the time to see it. It has been the arrogance of the President and Pelosi that prevented them from responding to the shift. The economy was a symptom of the problem, not the cause

---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

You paint with a very broad brush. Are you sure that is your position? Are the people who voted in Congressional races, state, and local races, sending a resounding message that there was a need for a new direction, all are "chumps"?

Well since I live in Mexico I highly doubt your "experiment?" would work well for me.

If I were in the states I think even if I found people who disagreed with me, which would likely not be difficult, I'm certain I'd still think they were "real Americans."

When Bush Jr. was in office many folks on the right used to say "no matter how you feel about the man, he's the POTUS and out of respect of the office it's wrong to speak ill of him... especially during time of war." Now many of those same "real Americans" are talking about Obama and calling him everything but human. Hypocrites, bloody hypocrites.

Extending your argument - is anything unsafe off limits for children?

Remember this guy from the 1970 TV special Santa Clause is Coming to Town, the Burgermeister Meisterburge?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EVNJz2KzLV...GERMEISTER.jpg

You and the folks from SF can have the wold he wanted.

In my view it is symbolic of what Pelosi represents, nothing more.

right, ace dear.

just a little flick of the wheel and you run right off Reality Street again...

now if i understand this newest confection that you're trying out

you wander around stopping people in gas stations and mcdonalds in the area where you live and button-hole them into "political conservations"

which if the way you comport yourself here are any indications are likely to be these unhinged little fact-free digressions

that may elicit agreement because people may well tell you what you want to hear just so you'll go away.

....but no matter.....

and on the basis of this Important Research, you've concluded what no-one else anywhere has

which is that the results of the mid-terms reflect some kind of non-reactive "conservative resurgence" and the economy has nothing to do with it.

wow.

I am guilty as charged. I have no defense, but I was saying I did not trust Obama long before he became President.

Please list one thing that is both proven to be a health risk and is also addictive that you believe children should have access to. I can't think of anything, but they say two heads are better than one.
I'm asking you to elaborate. It would seem to be more than just the government getting between children and dangerous and addictive things.

It ain't complicated. The results of the election speak for themselves. If you did not see it coming, if you don't understand why it happened - that's you with your head in the sand.

How does your distrust of Obama have anything to do with making it ok to be hypocritical now? I'm sure a lot of those who called Bush Jr. all kinds of nasty things didn't trust him before he was elected too.

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

I think you guys on the right are making conclusions about this election that might come back to bite you in the ass.

Is Dunning-Krueger the correct spelling for this type of thing?

Endorphins. In some cases endorphins can be harmful and addictive. I would not pass legislation disallowing children to engage in activities that produce endorphins. Would you?

Before I go through an exercise of giving example after example, are you suggesting that SF does not have a unique culture? Then speaking in generalities which is all we can do are you suggesting the SF culture (assuming you think there is one) mainstream?

---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

It does not make it o.k. I should show more respect to the office. I believe I have crossed the line in being disrespectful on some occasions. The post I responded to helped me see that and that I have been hypocritical. Now my challenge is to stop.

The blood-brain barrier prevents too many from getting access to the brain, so I'm not sure how they could be harmful.
While different areas of the United States have different cultures, none are more or less American than any other. While different areas of the United States have a multitude of people with different values and ideologies, none of them are more or less American than any other. Those are my assertions. You are no more or less American than I am, and to suggest otherwise is to commit a terribly unfair No True Scotsman.

There has been studies involving adults who get addicted to the endorphin rush from exercise and sex. In children there have been links with endorphins and video game addiction. but, you wanted an example - I gave one, now you want to debate the example rather than the issue? Seems like an endless cycle.

First, there is a problem in how we define the term. For example NASCAR does not reflect mainstream America, NASCAR is unique to the people who enjoy it. I would not say American values are reflected in NASCAR culture. I personally agree with you.

I think there are some cultures that are leading edge. I believe history has shown that some things that become a part of mainstream culture germinate in certain areas. 20 years ago, I remember consistently saying trends starting in NY and CA would spread across the country. I saw those areas as cutting edge.

Before moving on, do you see that, do you agree?

um, hmmmm, uhhh. yes.
There is a current struggle in this country between moderation and ultra-right politics. If you've cast a vote against 'liberalism' in (at least) the last three decades then you have in reality cast a vote for ultra right conservatism. And since (I can only hope) not all of the people out there voting against the 'scary socialist politics' of the entirely middle-of-the-road present day Democratic party would like to think of themselves as ultra-rightists (I'm pretty sure of that), it is plain to me that they've been, yeah, duped. Chumps. That is indeed what I think.

You met only one criteria. I agree endorphins can be addictive, but they're not dangerous. Happy Meals aren't just addictive. Regular intake of Happy Meals will increase your risk of heart disease and diabetes the same way regular intake of cigarette smoke will increase you risk of cancer. Regular endoirphin use does not have a corresponding increase in a health risk.
You're original quote was about "values" specifically. You mentioned culture in your previous post, so you're welcome to define it as you see fit, but I see it as a bit off topic from the question I posed. This started with your suggestion that Pelosi, along with other people from my home, somehow don't have or have less American values.
Cultural centers tend to yield cultural trends, yes. When did we stop talking about values?

nice, filtherton.


dunning-kruger:

Dunning?Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I vote against people who want to ban Happy Meals, ban certain fats, sugary drinks, ban gun ownership, ban my health care choices, raise my taxes, force union membership, force electric car use, control my wages, etc., etc., that means my vote is for ultra-right conservatism? Got it, color me a chump.

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

An addiction to video games can be pretty dangerous to the social, physical and mental development of a child. Perhaps, you can read some of the information on the subject. Having a 13 year old son, I see the potential problems. By the way Call of Duty Black Ops, sold $340 million in its first 24 hours. My son was not allowed to get a copy at midnight on a school night no less, he described many of his friends the next day at school as "zombies". They were up all night playing the game.

So again, I don't think I am special. I just observe what is happening. Like many things, not you specifically, but many want to pretend problems are not real. What I describe can be very dangerous to children, and parents need to get involved.

For example at one point view of homosexuality in this country was at a low level, call it X. A SF man, Harvey Milk (ed.) came along and moved X in a positive direction. I vaguely remember his fight with the "orange juice lady" I don't recall her name, but the movie about his life refreshed my memory. In that case a SF value, in my view became a US value (and the nation is still moving in that direction), now from a liberal governing point of view I see a nation revolting against what Pelosi represents. It seems clear to me, but the message may be getting lost in finding the correct words.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

Funny, you folks got all the answers, yet you are not out solving the world's problems. Why are you wasting your valuable skills here?

How about some more name calling to the people who have a different view point? That never gets old.:rolleyes:

Endorphins do not cause your son to stay up playing video games. The release of endorphins may correlate with staying up all night, but they don't cause it. You're thinking of adrenaline. Second, you're comparing Call of Duty and not finishing homework to heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. You're being intellectually dishonest, Ace. If you can't think of an example of something which is both addictive and dangerous which you think children should have access to, admit it and let's move on.
What it seems like you're saying is that it's not that we here in San Francisco don't have American values, we just have new values first. That seems to be true on some things, like homosexuality, but I don't know that's true as a rule. Still, what it seems like you're saying and what I think you're saying are two different things. What I think you're actually thinking is that liberals (like those in San Fransisco) pull moderates and conservatives into new things and you don't like that; it makes you uncomfortable because you feel like you're betraying your old values.

I wouldn't dream of it.

This doesn't make any sense. If Murkowski "broke the rules" by running as a write-in candidate then Pelosi is arguably "breaking the rules" by attempting to retain her leadership position even though Sean Hannity and aceventura think she shouldn't. So she is a fighter, and is probably somewhere punching somebody in the face as we speak.

And there's nothing wrong with blaming the people who deserve blame- attribution of responsibility is just one of the ways in which rational people use logic to make sense of the world. I guarantee that Murkowski will blame Miller if he succeeds in getting enough write-in ballots tossed for her to lose the election.


I didn't think it did, but you used the Mars/Venus line, which is a direct (though unintentional?) reference to a book about gender relations.

Pelosi arguably doesn't have responsibility in the recent slaughter. And it is entirely factual to say that she has suffered slights from the right wing media. And it is entirely plausible that if she were to be replaced with someone else, that person would also suffer similarly.

What this has to do with fighting is beyond me. Is your premise that the fact that Pelosi isn't embracing the way the right wing has distorted reality means that she isn't a fighter? That's dumb. Fighters are people who fight for what they think is right, a characteristic which generally has nothing to do with a willingness to embrace the slander of their antagonists.

I don't have all the answers and I recognize that fact. There are whole mountains of things that I don't understand. I do typically know enough to know when I don't actually understand something. You should give it a try.

There is a difference between having a "different" viewpoint and having a view point that behaves like a newtonian fluid. Besides, weren't you the accusing those who disagree with you of having unamerican values?

Do you play video games? Do you know people who do? Do you know people who will play for 8 hours straight with little or no break? Here is what can happen, in the excitement of a video game the player may become total engrossed getting what some call a runners high. The endorphin released during such a high can be like morphine. It can be like a serious pain killer, the player becomes numb. There is a sensory deprivation that occurs at the same time there are spurts of adrenalin rushes. Thrill seekers go through a similar process and if addicted there is a need for greater and greater risk to achieve the same high. Like I said, if interested, look into it. I have not done any scientific studies nor am I a scientist. I have seen this phenomenon, it is real and in my view for some people can be dangerous.

Is your point that, this is not a real danger? What are you saying? Are you saying it is a problem but I am not crafting the problem correctly? Gee, my gut tells me no matter what I present here, someone will have a problem with it.

No, I am not.

Come on, you can not seriously be saying that you are unaware of the extent of this issue, are you? If a child spends 50 to 60 hours per week playing video games, and it happens, I would argue it will have a bigger impact on all phases of their lives than even most illegal drugs and alcohol.

O.k., you don't think its a problem, I do - move on.

I said history has shown there are examples of that.

Certainly not any longer.

What I like is not in question. There is a national rejection of SF style liberalism, voters made that clear. Pelosi, in the minds of many represents that and many politicians ran and won races touting that message.

you know, it's friday afternoon.

one of my unamerican activities on friday afternoons is to stop what i am doing and dance around to music, preferably with vocals that aren't in english, while imbibing a frou frou beverage.

later i shall disparage regular american values using the sort of pretentious vocabulary that only a virtuouso of conservative persecution could muster.

then maybe deep in the night i will go to the crossroads and summon my minions. we will ride out on horseback to kidnap sleeping real americans in the night. because the law is drawn to the guilty, we shall dispense with niceties like facts and proceed straight to being very bad people and dispatch real americans in an auto-da-fé.

later i shall publish my memoirs and be disarmingly frank about the whole thing.

join me if you'd care to.

shall we get started?

My take was more with "people" with different thought processes and the the use of man/woman was figurative. I saw application in all types of relationships and all types of people.

Based on everything else you have written, we have very different thought processes. I don't understand what you are saying or your points at all. I have a divide with most here, but our divide seems to be much greater, I don't even know what to say to garner any progress at all.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I have asked this before and did not see a response, are you actually a moderator? If so, what is your role? How do you think you are doing?

hahahaha.

I think it was Bobby Blue Bland who sang:

...if loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right...

how fucking perfect is that?

:lol:

...

Interesting results from a Pew Center poll this week....Public is less enthusiastic about the Republican victory this year than the two previous switches in control of the House...and approve less of the Republican plans and policies.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1798-1.png

ace...there is no mandate..there is not widespread popular support for your rigid ultra-conservatism.

And no, you and the Tea Party and/or the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party do not represent the values of a majority of Americans, who also btw, want the Republicans to show a greater willingness to compromise and not be so rigid (and sanctimonious - my editorial observation) in their ideology.

But you obviously dont understand the concept of compromise...to you, it is a sign of weakness, not consensus-building for the greater good.

I do play video games. I'm not arguing video games aren't addictive, they can be (as much as anything which is not physically addictive). What' I'm arguing is that the euphoric high from endorphins released when playing video games do not have a dangerous physical effect on human beings. In that way, it cannot be compared to a high fat, salt, and sugar diet and smoking. They are apples and oranges.
Fine.
That's not causal. Anyone that eats a Happy Meal is increasing his or her risk of heart disease and diabetes. Anyone that smokes is increasing his or her risk of heart disease. What about video games or other activities that trigger a natural release of endorphins?
Having new values first doesn't make our values less American.
You're arguing that the national wave of bigotry against the gay community is your example of American values? Did you follow the Proposition 8 appeal? Are you aware that banning gay marriage in the United States is in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? In what way is that an example of American values?

Yes DC that's what I was talking about when I mentioned the GOP might not be looking at this election correctly. They're calling it a "mandate," the polls show it completely different.

But I also disagree with Ace's assessment that Miller lost because he swung too far right. I think he lost (or will lose) because several facts such as his lying came to light after the primaries were over. That's pretty much what the exit polls show from what I read.

It was easy for the Republicans to just be the party of NO for the last two years and the simplistic (and ideological) response would be to conclude they were successful.

But now they have to lead the House, with policies and positions that, for the most part, do not have widespread public support.

Yep, most people favor many parts of HCR but don't care for some parts or elements. Instead of trying to fix it the GOP wants to unfund and dismantle it. Things like that will not go over well even with Fox News spewing lies 24/7.

I think Miller lost because he was exposed as a tea party poseur. Hard to be a credible tea party candidate when you had to go on public assistance while attending your ivy league law school. Also, the whole having-your-private-security-goons-detain-a-local-journalist couldn't have played too well. He lost because he is obviously crazy and obviously completely full of shit.

You saw his post and you question me?

Concur, that's what I meant when I said "other stuff" just couldn't remember most of it.

How crazy do you have to be to be too crazy for the tea party? Gez.

I believe I have been saying that there was a rejection and anti-Pelosi sentiment that was used by winning candidates and that the approach worked.

Again, I know most Americans are not as far right as I am. Haven't I made that clear. If not, let me say - I see things in (figuratively) in black and white, I think being a "centrist" is being nothing and is a cop-out or fear of taking a stance. I don't compromise on issues important to me.

True. I have been trying to understand this concept for several years now. when I ask questions and seek clarification, I get ignored or the name calling begins. I am not going to give up - one day perhaps you can communicate how and why you compromise on your core values or beliefs. President Obama's willingness to compromise often leaves me confused.

Exit polls dont support your opinion....and in broader terms, neither do the polls results above.

its a good thing the framers of the Constitution understood the concept of compromise.

Nearly every of those guys left Philadelphia unhappy about one or more provisions of the Constitution.

But they understood the greater good....a concept that you still dont get if you think is a sign of weakness.

And you get feedback that you might not like when you take the discussion off course rather than address the issues and facts when confronted.

You are simply wrong regarding how you present the comparison above. Salt, sugar and fat are all required as normal part of human functionality. So are endorphins. In some circumstance they all can be dangerous.

Since I have no credibility present the question to someone who has credibility in your book.

Never said that, did I?

Please put the issue in a proper historical perspective.

Slavery at one time was an accepted American value, change germinated.
Women sufferage was not always an American value, it germinated.
Emmisions control as I recall was first and foremost a California value, where California lead the rest of the nation, it was a value that germinated.
Pelosi style liberalism was germinating and was rejected.

Do you get what i am trying to say?

Take this to another thread please.

This is what you do, ace....you take threads off course...you go off on tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topics....repeatedly.

Many politicians over come lies or mis-statements. The real issue that created the opportunity for Murkowski was Miller being inexperienced and too far right. Conservative business people in particular want what they consider a reasoned voice in Washington - they do not want an extremist who they think would be considered a joke. Miller lost that base and it will cost him the Senate seat.

Wow, this is a tough bit to swallow. Centrism is a stance. What are you saying? That one must be either a communist or a fascist or they're copping out? Are Republicans copping out in their lite-rightism and should take a firm fascist stance and be done with it? Should Democrats forgo moderate positions that support both capitalism and social liberalism and just go ahead and be the socialists/communists that they're already labelled as?

You might see things in black in white, but in reality the world is in colour.

I think the underlying problem in America is a perpetual sense of crisis. Can you think of a time when America wasn't faced with a perceived crisis? I can't. America runs on fear. It was built on fear.

The current fear was triggered by an economic meltdown, so now people are lashing out at what they fear: liberalism, socialism, the "nanny state," entitlement spending, tax-and-spend Democrats, taxes, etc.

Before that, it was triggered by terrorism, and so people were pushing for war.

We could probably trace the entire history of America back long some trail made up by a pattern of crisis. The really interesting thing would be to determine how much of that is fabricated and how much of it is of legitimate concern.

Things would be so much easier if they were in black and white. I'm pretty sure popes, emperors, kings, and dictators believed so too. I'm pretty sure mainstream black and white thinking began to wane sometime during the Age of Enlightenment. However, I think the biggest shift occurred during the 20th century. Those damn French philosophers. They really made things confusing.

...

I don't believe the polls. I believe what I heard, what I saw. I listened as people went off on the subject of President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's agenda. If you believe the polls, that is o.k. If everybody in the world believes them and I don't, that is o.k. too - I will stand alone.


Wow, do I disagree. They compromised on the slavery question, need I say more. That screw up alone cost this country over 200 years of racial strife. On that issue they failed in my opinion.

P.s. - I am not Glenn Beck nor do I put our founding fathers on an imaginary pedestal the way he does. They had issues, like most of us do.

---------- Post added at 11:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------

What I do is respond to people.

I get it...national polls of scientifically selected samples of cross-section of voters are less meaningful than your personal observations of your friends and neighbors.


There would not have been a United States of both north and south w/o that compromise. Are you really that clueless?

Civics less for you, ace:

What did the Framers think when the Philadelphia Convention ended?

The Constitution has been described as "a bundle of compromises." As you have seen, such prominent features of the Constitution as the different plans for representation in the House and the Senate and the method of selecting the president were settled by compromise. Compromise, however, means that everyone gets less than they want. There were enough compromises in the completed Constitution that nearly every delegate could find something he did not like. During the four months the delegates had spent putting the Constitution together, there were some strong disagreements. Some had walked out of the convention. Three refused to sign the finished document.

http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=wtp_hs15_sb

One could even suggest that your "no compromise" rigidity is counter to American values.

Am I allowed to respond? If so, and I have posted my view on this, is that there is no centrist position on the major political issues of the day. Fro example you can not be centrist on the question of war, it is either in or out.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 PM ----------

I get questioned about going off topic etc, you direct your comment to me not Roach, I don't see balance on these issues. In my view, I think some want me to go away.